SamKR wrote:From the practical point of view, understanding any "thing" to be "not self" or "no self" is much more useful than leaving a scope for possibility of "true self".

If we have a view that there is a possibility of "true self" (to be realized at a higher level of our Dhamma-practice), then whenever we perceive any permanent-bliss like state we may regard it as "true self" and so we may get stuck with that experience (thinking it to be nibbana), and stop further development. (Contemplation of "not self" alone is not sufficient, it should be supported by understanding of impermanence and others: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html.)

But if we regard everything (any experience whatsoever, permanent or impermanent, Dukkha or sukha, even if it is nibbana) as "not self" or "no self" then there will be lesser possibility of being stuck in any particular experience (for example, the so called "non-dual" experience). If we have really realized nibbana then there's no harm in considering it as "not-self", but if we haven't then understanding that particular experience as "not-self" will help to develop further to realization of nibbana.

So, having the view that "there is no self" is a right view and it's a right strategy (no-self strategy) since it leads to the elimination of Dukkha. But any view that hints that "there is possibility of 'true self'" is terribly inclined towards wrong view since it may hinder the process of elimination of Dukkha or the realization of nibbana itself.

IMO, the Buddha is the best teacher of all. And if he didn't feel the need to established the no-self theory then we should keep his teaching preseverd. This is the respect attitude to the Buddha, and also we are not enlightened, so there is a chance we may explain the doctrine wrongly. I don't know there is no self or there is a true self, maybe currently I accept a view but I am not hold on it as it is 100% true. So IMO, the best action is keeping the doctrine as close as possible to the earliest suttas. If the Buddha kept silent, we should keep silent and put the problem aside, if the Buddha didn't talk about no-self, we should not. Any doubt or misunderstand should be explained under existed doctrine, not the new built one.

If each generation changes the doctrine a little, adds some of their element to the doctrine or explain in their view, then the dhamma will disappear sooner. Look at Mahayana, I feel that Therevada is lucky because the tradition tried to preseve thing as clear as possible

whynotme wrote:IMO, the Buddha is the best teacher of all. And if he didn't feel the need to established the no-self theory then we should keep his teaching preseverd. This is the respect attitude to the Buddha, and also we are not enlightened, so there is a chance we may explain the doctrine wrongly. I don't know there is no self or there is a true self, maybe currently I accept a view but I am not hold on it as it is 100% true. So IMO, the best action is keeping the doctrine as close as possible to the earliest suttas. If the Buddha kept silent, we should keep silent and put the problem aside, if the Buddha didn't talk about no-self, we should not. Any doubt or misunderstand should be explained under existed doctrine, not the new built one.

Certainly we should pay attention to what the Buddha taught. I don't think that Robert (or anyone else) is trying to argue that he knows better than the Buddha!

What we can definitely say is that some read those suttas and argue that the Buddha taught quite clearly that there is no self to be found anywhere ("Sabbe dhamma anatta"). Others (such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu) disagree with that assessment and argue that he taught a "not-self strategy". I have found it very useful to hear both sides, since it prevents me from being lazy or complacent about the issue.

However, I would argue that the "true self" idea has little support. I've seen no sutta that suggests that as a serious possibility (though I would be interested to hear of one).

whynotme wrote:IMO, the Buddha is the best teacher of all. And if he didn't feel the need to established the no-self theory then we should keep his teaching preseverd. This is the respect attitude to the Buddha, and also we are not enlightened, so there is a chance we may explain the doctrine wrongly. I don't know there is no self or there is a true self, maybe currently I accept a view but I am not hold on it as it is 100% true. So IMO, the best action is keeping the doctrine as close as possible to the earliest suttas. If the Buddha kept silent, we should keep silent and put the problem aside, if the Buddha didn't talk about no-self, we should not. Any doubt or misunderstand should be explained under existed doctrine, not the new built one.

Certainly we should pay attention to what the Buddha taught. I don't think that Robert (or anyone else) is trying to argue that he knows better than the Buddha!

What we can definitely say is that some read those suttas and argue that the Buddha taught quite clearly that there is no self to be found anywhere ("Sabbe dhamma anatta"). Others (such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu) disagree with that assessment and argue that he taught a "not-self strategy". I have found it very useful to hear both sides, since it prevents me from being lazy or complacent about the issue.

However, I would argue that the "true self" idea has little support. I've seen no sutta that suggests that as a serious possibility (though I would be interested to hear of one).

Mike

I think the Buddha was pretty vehement about outright dropping any view about a true self. That being said, the difference between no-self and not-self isn't as big as some may make it seem. No-self can be criticized in the sense that it may contain some subtle self view in there, whereas not-self teaches that everything in experience is not-self and thus should not be clung too. Now it would seem to be the case that one can infer no-self from not self but the idea is that not self is the way to approach anatta without having a strong view. Just look at stuff and say that is not me, mine, myself and do not by any means start thinking, "oh but maybe there is something outside of experience that is myself. " If all experience were to cease, would there be the thought, "I am." no of course not. In no-self you are actively denying something, you're taking a position, something a Tathagata has done away with, whereas in not-self you simply look at things for what they are. No-self is based on inference whereas not-self is just the way things are. Anyway, that's a vague outline of my understanding of no-self/not-self, not-self is just the more direct way of looking at things. Of course, it's pretty easy to come up with a counter argument to what I've just said but I don't want to write a philosophical essay right now. Not-self just seems more in line with direct experience to me.

"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

What we call my-self, is actualy memory of expriance of this body. Body and mind, like all fenomena is actualy sankhara, the product of kamma, the product of causes and concequances, it moves by itself, like a rain drop on lotus leaf.

There is no importance if we call it no-self or not-self, because dhammas will continue to move by itself, even if you call it myself, or anatta, or chair, or president of United States, or what you want.

Stop to loose your time, it's stupid, just see it. The Dhamma is simple to observe, just put all fantasy in the trash, and abserve dhammas. It's all.

whynotme wrote:IMO, the Buddha is the best teacher of all. And if he didn't feel the need to established the no-self theory then we should keep his teaching preseverd. This is the respect attitude to the Buddha, and also we are not enlightened, so there is a chance we may explain the doctrine wrongly. I don't know there is no self or there is a true self, maybe currently I accept a view but I am not hold on it as it is 100% true. So IMO, the best action is keeping the doctrine as close as possible to the earliest suttas. If the Buddha kept silent, we should keep silent and put the problem aside, if the Buddha didn't talk about no-self, we should not. Any doubt or misunderstand should be explained under existed doctrine, not the new built one.

Certainly we should pay attention to what the Buddha taught. I don't think that Robert (or anyone else) is trying to argue that he knows better than the Buddha!

What we can definitely say is that some read those suttas and argue that the Buddha taught quite clearly that there is no self to be found anywhere ("Sabbe dhamma anatta"). Others (such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu) disagree with that assessment and argue that he taught a "not-self strategy". I have found it very useful to hear both sides, since it prevents me from being lazy or complacent about the issue.

However, I would argue that the "true self" idea has little support. I've seen no sutta that suggests that as a serious possibility (though I would be interested to hear of one).

Mike

I think Buddhists should have an opened mind like you. We need to hear from both sides.

True self is quite common in Mahayana. And I know it has little support in Therevada

I believe in true self based on my observation, which may not appropiate here. Based on suttas, there are two hints, the first is the famous khuddaka sutta I talked above. The second hint is the silence of the Buddha when was asked about the existence of the arahant after death.

I do not know pali, but the phrase you quoted, 'there is no self to be found anywhere', is different to 'there is no self' because of 'to be found'. Self is youself, so you cannot find it. E.g you can not see your face, a finger can not touch itself, a knife can not cut itself, observer or subject can only sees the object of observation, observer can not see himself. Consciouness can not see itself, but it is known by objects of it: color, sound, smell.. And so the self can not be found or observed, because it is the subject.

DAWN wrote:What we call my-self, is actualy memory of expriance of this body. Body and mind, like all fenomena is actualy sankhara, the product of kamma, the product of causes and concequances, it moves by itself, like a rain drop on lotus leaf.

There is no importance if we call it no-self or not-self, because dhammas will continue to move by itself, even if you call it myself, or anatta, or chair, or president of United States, or what you want.

Stop to loose your time, it's stupid, just see it. The Dhamma is simple to observe, just put all fantasy in the trash, and abserve dhammas. It's all.

Dear DAWN,

Don't try to be smart, you are inexperienced. The dhamma is not simple to observe because without the right concentration, you can not see it. What lead to right concentration? It is right view and right thoughts, so thinking is important. Without it you would see the false dhamma

whynotme wrote:[IMO, the Buddha is the best teacher of all. And if he didn't feel the need to established the no-self theory then we should keep his teaching preseverd. This is the respect attitude to the Buddha, and also we are not enlightened, so there is a chance we may explain the doctrine wrongly. I don't know there is no self or there is a true self, maybe currently I accept a view but I am not hold on it as it is 100% true. So IMO, the best action is keeping the doctrine as close as possible to the earliest suttas. If the Buddha kept silent, we should keep silent and put the problem aside, if the Buddha didn't talk about no-self, we should not. Any doubt or misunderstand should be explained under existed doctrine, not the new built one.

If each generation changes the doctrine a little, adds some of their element to the doctrine or explain in their view, then the dhamma will disappear sooner. Look at Mahayana, I feel that Therevada is lucky because the tradition tried to preseve thing as clear as possible

Regards

Earlier in the thread I quoted this sutta. Perhaps you could interpret it so we have some basis for discussion:Vajira Sutta BhikkuniSamyuttaVajirahttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/ca ... -010a.htmlThen the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases."

whynotme wrote:I believe in true self based on my observation, which may not appropiate here. Based on suttas, there are two hints, the first is the famous khuddaka sutta I talked above. The second hint is the silence of the Buddha when was asked about the existence of the arahant after death.

The Buddha was quite direct, as has been shown. The passage from the Udana certainly does not support your position, and he was not silent about the arahant after death.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Don't try to be smart, you are inexperienced. The dhamma is not simple to observe because without the right concentration, you can not see it. What lead to right concentration? It is right view and right thoughts, so thinking is important. Without it you would see the false dhamma

Regards

But the Buddha stated many times that with direct concentration, one could see the impermanence and non-self nature of the aggregates. I am not attempting to accuse you of anything, but I would suggest that you spend more time with right concentration, examining the aggregates, before you claim that you believe firmly in a true self. As you said yourself, to do otherwise is to allow false Dhamma to arise.

tiltbillings wrote:The Buddha was quite direct, as has been shown. The passage from the Udana certainly does not support your position, and he was not silent about the arahant after death.

Yeah, the Godhika Sutta makes it clear that an arahant cannot be found through the six senses after death; considering the clear teachings on "the all" that we have, I can't imagine that means much else except the nonarising of all aggregates.

Gain and loss, status and disgrace, censure and praise, pleasure and pain:these conditions among human beings are inconstant,impermanent, subject to change.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:[]Yeah, the Godhika Sutta makes it clear that an arahant cannot be found through the six senses after death; considering the clear teachings on "the all" that we have, I can't imagine that means much else except the nonarising of all aggregates.

Don't try to be smart, you are inexperienced. The dhamma is not simple to observe because without the right concentration, you can not see it. What lead to right concentration? It is right view and right thoughts, so thinking is important. Without it you would see the false dhamma

Regards

I'am not smart, i just try to tell that for observe impermanence, suffering and anatta, there is no difference if you call suffering stress, or if you call anatta no-self or not-self.

To observe anicca you have to observe itTo observe dukkha you have to observe itTo observe anatta you have to observe it

Remark, i dont said that you have to speak it, or thinking it, no, to observe it you have to observe it. It's visible directly, right here and now, so we have just to watch it, and it will tel as all that we want o know about it.

I'am sorry if i seems agressive with my exessive "smartness", and if i try correct everybody, but it seems to me sad to loose the time with "not-self" or "no-self"... it's just anatta, moves atomaticly, leaded by causes and conequances, it's all. I'am anatta, you are anatta, this dog is anatta, this rain too is anatta, TV is anatta, PC is anatta, Obama is anatta, Romney is anatta, Buddha is anatta...

Don't try to be smart, you are inexperienced. The dhamma is not simple to observe because without the right concentration, you can not see it. What lead to right concentration? It is right view and right thoughts, so thinking is important. Without it you would see the false dhamma

Regards

But the Buddha stated many times that with direct concentration, one could see the impermanence and non-self nature of the aggregates. I am not attempting to accuse you of anything, but I would suggest that you spend more time with right concentration, examining the aggregates, before you claim that you believe firmly in a true self. As you said yourself, to do otherwise is to allow false Dhamma to arise.

Well, of course spending time on right concentration is good but the problem of self is not simple, as many Mahayanists attained jhanas and they still believe in true self. Now you said I should concentrate on examining the aggregates, but IMO it is not the right way because I don't say there is self in five aggregates. The right concentration is needed but right thought is needed before it. You can not get right concentration without right thought, without right view.

If there is no self, the Buddha only needed to say it once. But on every occasions, he didn't state the simple words: there is no self. There is none of sutta stated that there is no self

Regards

Last edited by whynotme on Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

LonesomeYogurt wrote:[]Yeah, the Godhika Sutta makes it clear that an arahant cannot be found through the six senses after death; considering the clear teachings on "the all" that we have, I can't imagine that means much else except the nonarising of all aggregates.

Exactly so, it is like a flame dying out due to no more fuel.

So what do you think about these statements:The Soviet Union doesn't exist after the collapse in 1991. Can we say this?And so, can we say the arahant doesn't exist after death?

Don't try to be smart, you are inexperienced. The dhamma is not simple to observe because without the right concentration, you can not see it. What lead to right concentration? It is right view and right thoughts, so thinking is important. Without it you would see the false dhamma

Regards

I'am not smart, i just try to tell that for observe impermanence, suffering and anatta, there is no difference if you call suffering stress, or if you call anatta no-self or not-self.

To observe anicca you have to observe itTo observe dukkha you have to observe itTo observe anatta you have to observe it

Remark, i dont said that you have to speak it, or thinking it, no, to observe it you have to observe it. It's visible directly, right here and now, so we have just to watch it, and it will tel as all that we want o know about it.

I'am sorry if i seems agressive with my exessive "smartness", and if i try correct everybody, but it seems to me sad to loose the time with "not-self" or "no-self"... it's just anatta, moves atomaticly, leaded by causes and conequances, it's all. I'am anatta, you are anatta, this dog is anatta, this rain too is anatta, TV is anatta, PC is anatta, Obama is anatta, Romney is anatta, Buddha is anatta...

Because the wise one doesn't talk off topic often. The topic here is no self, do you see the Buddha always bring the observation of anicca, dukkha and anatta as the answer for every question?

I will tell you my story. Formerly, I was like you now a day, every thing I talked seem right, yes do this, do that, it is like this, it is like that. I feel comfortable, nothing a problem for me till the day suffering catches me and I realized that I hit a wall, the practice is useless even I tried very hard to follow what is said in the suttas. I realized that I hold on too much on my mind, it is deep in my mind in the unconsciousness. And I saw many things, e.g things that I thought not fit to the Buddhism but it exists. So now when I see others gives free advices, I knew them think the dhamma is easy to see, but actually it is not. Destroying emotions is extremely hard, not just only observe thing can solve it, but you need actually observe it, thing you only know when you hit a wall

whynotme wrote:Because the wise one doesn't talk off topic often. The topic here is no self, do you see the Buddha always bring the observation of anicca, dukkha and anatta as the answer for every question?

I will tell you my story. Formerly, I was like you now a day, every thing I talked seem right, yes do this, do that, it is like this, it is like that. I feel comfortable, nothing a problem for me till the day suffering catches me and I realized that I hit a wall, the practice is useless even I tried very hard to follow what is said in the suttas. I realized that I hold on too much on my mind, it is deep in my mind in the unconsciousness. And I saw many things, e.g things that I thought not fit to the Buddhism but it exists. So now when I see others gives free advices, I knew them think the dhamma is easy to see, but actually it is not. Destroying emotions is extremely hard, not just only observe thing can solve it, but you need actually observe it, thing you only know when you hit a wall

Regards

If this topic speaks about "NO self or NOT self", i am sorry for my offtopic. Anyway it seems to me NOT important in practice (or perharps NO important in practice ?) to know if rain drop is NO-self or NOT-self, perharps because for me is the same, and i dont want to know the diferences but the similities.Diference divideSimilies unifyKnowlegde devidePractice unify

I know that all dhamma cant be devided from the rest, so i practice unity, and never understand devision. Devision is the origin of Self, so perharps to understand if dhammas are NO-self or NOT-self we have just to stop to try devide it, but unify it ? have to stop speak about unity by devision?

whynotme wrote:@ DAWN, if you want the unification, there is a lesson in the Vinaya where the Buddha taught how the monks and laypeople should react when there is a division in the sangha and dhamma

Regards

I dont want dhammas be unify, i want dhmmas be what they are. I practice what i see, and i see what i practice. So if dhammas was devided, i were practice devision. But they not.

What is RIGHT practice? Is the practice that goes with the Dhamma, the law wich lead all dhammas.What is RIGHT view? Is the view that is based on the Dhamma, the law wich lead all dhammas.etc.

No-self or Not-self, for me is the same, perharps there is some different nuances, but is because of this nuances the practice is different? I'dont think so.

Sila samadhi panna practice.Sila depends on No-self or Not-self view? No, because in Sila there is no ego, so this difference dont exist.Samadhi depends on No-self or Not-self view? No, because is Samadhi there is no ego, so we dont care if it's No-self or Not-selfPanna depends on No-self or Not-self view? No, because in Panna there is no ego too...

Of caurse we can speak about it, but is this discusion constructive or destructive? have this discution any practice benefits? I dont think so.